# Secular Humanism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2011, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688 "2011-10-14T08:32:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/221 "2011-10-20T16:33:35Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I agree. My point is more to his claim that he reads and responds carefully, which I find to be in error time and again and agree with Zoe about. I’m slightly confused. Was post #194 an ironic example of the sort of thing people might do if they respond without reading properly? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/222 "2011-10-20T16:35:35Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Yet our secular courts put people to death on the testimony of one person alone and call it evidence. If what people write in books cannot be evidence, we’re gonna have to reexamine our entire paradigm of knowledge. I doubt very much any jury would convict based on the testimony of one person alone without supporting physical evidence. I doubt the prosecution would even bring the case to trial. Outside of Texas, of course. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/223 "2011-10-20T16:36:32Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Yet our secular courts put people to death on the testimony of one person alone and call it evidence. If what people write in books cannot be evidence, we’re gonna have to reexamine our entire paradigm of knowledge. What horseshit! Supernatural claims in old books that are contrary to evidence are never used to convict anyone of anything. > [@](#): > > So, is your claim “The failure to find evidence is certain proof that no such evidence can ever be found in the future?” No, and you know it isn’t. Just like you know that your previous statement is a load of crap. There’s no such thing as “certain proof.” But I’ll play along and bold some relevant parts of the section of the book I quoted in case you’re truly having difficulty: > [@](#): > > According to the biblical account, six hundred thousand Jews participated in the escape from Egypt. Even if this is wildly exagerated, Finkelstein and Silberman argue that \*\*some archaeological traces of their wandering should have been found by now. Despite extensive searching, “not a single campsite or sign of occupation from of Ramses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has ever been identified in Sinai.” > > Finkelstein and Silberman note that modern archaeological techniques are capable of tracing even the very meager remains of small bands of far more ancient hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. They say, “The conclusion - that the Exodus did not happen at the time and manner described in the Bible - seems irrefutable.”\*\* > > Finkelstein and Silberman are part of a school of biblical archaeologists called “minimalists,” who argue that many biblical accounts of early Israel have little, if any basis in factual data. They are opposed by the “maximalists,” who still claim that Bible accounts are generally confirmed by archaeology. **One highly respected scholar, William Dever, has tried to straddle the two positions. But he has to agree with the minimalists on the questions of Moses. “Absolutely no trace of Moses or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the exodus and the wandering in the wilderness — events so crucial in the Biblical recitation of the ‘mighty acts of God’ — we have no evidence whatsoever… Recent Israeli excavations at Kadesh- Barnea, the Sinai oasis where the Israelites are said to have encamped for forty years, have revealed an extensive settlement, but not so much as a potsherd earlier than the tenth century B.C.”** > > The minimalists also cast considerable doubt that the great battles in Canaan, which the Bible describes as happening after the death of Moses, actually occurred. The cities in the region were poor and unfortified at the time, and the excavations show no signs of destruction. Jericho had no walls to come tumbling down at the blast of Joshua’s trumpet. In fact, it was not even settled at the time, having been destroyed around 2400 BCE, some nine hundred years before Joshua’s alleged conquest. > > In short, the stories of Moses and his immediate successors are surely myths. **In science, the absence of evidence that is required by a hypothesis constitutes a falsification of the hypothesis. The hypothesis of a God who selected out a small desert tribe as his chosen people and communicated the law to them while they wandered the the Sinai Desert is is falsified by the absence of evidence required by that hypothesis.** ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/224 "2011-10-20T16:42:39Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Yet our secular courts put people to death on the testimony of one person alone and call it evidence. If what people write in books cannot be evidence, we’re gonna have to reexamine our entire paradigm of knowledge. Erich von Daniken wrote a book a while back called [Chariots of the Gods](http://www.amazon.com/Chariots-Gods-Erich-von-Daniken/dp/0425166805/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319128703&sr=8-1) in which he postulated that aliens visited earth in the past. Many people believe in his writings. So I guess you would agree that this book is evidence that aliens once walked among us? No, actually it is not evidence. Just because someone once wrote something down, does not mean that it becomes “evidence”. ---
**Author:** ![jinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jinty)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/225 "2011-10-20T16:50:24Z")
[QUOTE=David42] It’s the absolute certainty that the scripture is false that I take issue with. [/QUOTE] X-ray vision didn’t say _anything_ about absolute certainty. But if the archaeological evidence _contradicts_ scripture - as x-ray vision’s quoted passage from “God: The Failed Hypothesis” does, why do _you_ get a free pass to ignore this evidence? You said earlier: “You can claim [scripture] to be fiction, **but I see it as ignoring evidence.** ” Are we to assume it’s ok when you do it? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/226 "2011-10-20T16:53:11Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Yet our secular courts put people to death on the testimony of one person alone and call it evidence. As I’m sure you know, the most up-to-date studies on that subject conclude that eye-witness testimony is riddled with error and shouldn’t be trusted. So not only is the written word not to be trusted, nor is the anecdote from which it comes. What is more, the greater the distance in time between the incident and the anecdote, the more error strewn it becomes. None of that fills me with confidence in the bible’s worth as a historical document. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/227 "2011-10-20T17:01:31Z")
> [@David42](#): > > It’s the absolute certainty that the scripture is false that I take issue with. Are you _absolutely certain_ that there’s not a unicorn in your bathroom? Have you checked in the last five minutes? And remember, unicorns are shy creatures that can turn themselves invisible … . If millions of people claimed that there were unicorns in their bathrooms, would you take them seriously? What would be your opinion of legislation regulating the size of bathrooms to make them more unicorn-friendly? As for me, I’m not _absolutely certain_ there’s not a unicorn in my bathroom, just as I’m not _absolutely certain_ there’s no God. However, if you ask me if there’s a unicorn in my bathroom, I will still confidently answer “No, of course not, don’t be silly.” ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/228 "2011-10-20T17:26:55Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I have yet to see anybody in the Republican mainstream take a crap on a police car. First, you do not know that pooper’s political affiliation. Secondly, he wasn’t “taking a crap” – he was using non-lethal chemical weapons. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/229 "2011-10-20T17:52:01Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Just pointing out that most of the crazies ranting in public aren’t religious these days, they’re mostly political, and they’re on your end of the political spectrum. I certainly don’t consider myself to be part of the political left, but golly, almost all of the batshit-crazy stuff I come across is from the far right, and it’s almost exclusively from the religious sub-branch of the far right. Can you find any comparable stories to the ones cataloged on [this site](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches), but from the left? A few very recent headlines: [Dominionists Try to Hide Their Agenda](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/20/dominionists-try-to-hide-their-agenda/) [Tea Party Leader: Occupy Protesters are Nazis!](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/20/tea-party-leader-occupy-protesters-are-nazis/) [Texas DA Opposes DNA Testing](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/20/texas-da-opposes-dna-testing/) [Santorum Attacks Fellow Candidates as Not Anti-Gay Enough](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/19/santorum-attacks-fellow-candidates-as-not-anti-gay-enough/) [Fischer Wants to Impose Biblical Law](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/19/fischer-wants-to-impose-biblical-law/) [Florida Pol Thinks Death Penalty Not Bloodthirsty Enough](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/19/florida-pol-thinks-death-penalty-not-bloodthirsty-enough/) [Glenn Beck is Going to Be Killed](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/18/glenn-beck-is-going-to-be-killed/) [Barber: No Dominionism, Just Taking Over the Government](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/17/barber-no-dominionism-just-taking-over-the-government/) [Demons Captured on Film!](http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/16/demons-captured-on-film/) It’s not just some unknown idiot crapping on a police car - it’s the freakin’ leaders of the movement, wanting to dictate how I live my life. ---
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/230 "2011-10-20T19:11:13Z")
> [@David42](#): > > No Christian claims pixies exist… Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the Cottingley Fairies? > [@David42](#): > > They are glad to point out a lack of murder, rape and theft as proof of their moral code, but these are all no-brainers. And yet these have all been done, not only _by_ Christians, but in the name of their god. > [@David42](#): > > In my moral code, I have a tenet “You shall not bear false witness.” I find these kinds of strawmen to be false witness. In short, a person knowing that Christians do not believe in reanimated corpses that continue to rot (and usually are portrayed as having a hunger for BRAAAAAIIIIINS) yet this is how Jesus is often portrayed by these atheists who have no problem claiming they are moral. I have seen/heard the Jewish zombie line before. However I have never seen it used factually, only fatuously. It’s a lanyard used to hoist up the apparent absurdities of a core tenet of Christian doctrine. > [@David42](#): > > Where is your love of truth? Isn’t that in the secular moral code? . My secular opinion is that “truth” is a subjective state. A person can tell the truth, and yet be factually in error. That’s why we constantly bang on about ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’. > [@David42](#): > > Now, I’m not taking anyone to task who wants to draw legitimate metaphors and admit they are metaphors. Metaphor time: Believing in Jesus Christ is like Believing in Santa Clause. You only get the reward (eternal bliss/presents) if your worship is of pure intent. If you worship Jesus/Santa simply because of the rewards offered he will see through your subterfuge and grant you nothing. If come christmas day you don’t get the present you wanted off Santa it’s either because he knew you were only worshipping him to get that present. Or the present he gave you ws what you _really_ wanted. You may not even realise your true present when you see it, bacause _Santa works in mysterious ways_. > [@David42](#): > > Further, i’d cut more slack to people who claim this if they want to describe the people who have been clinically dead but came back to life as “zombies,” which really wouldn’t be very kind to said living humans. If that’s your understanding of zombism, fine, call Jesus a zombie, but don’t be surprised when a real life once dead person thinks your more than rude when you also describe him that way. Please! There is quite a difference between a momentary cessation of heartbeat and breathing, and being nailed up to a plank of wood by your wrists/stabbed with a spear/shut in a tomb for three days. And before you start, no I’m not saying that all clinical deaths are “momentary cessations”, but I borrowed your brush and it was wider than I’m used to. ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/231 "2011-10-20T20:39:52Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Communism is a secularist movement. The movement’s ideology is distinctly secularist. It is, of course, only one form of secularism among many. Secularism is the set, Communism is a subset of the set. Got that? Nope. Communism is a political ideology. Secularism may be a component, but anyone claiming secularism is the motivating force behind totalitarian regimes is embarrassing themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/232 "2011-10-20T21:55:44Z")
> [@David42](#): > > So, is your claim “The failure to find evidence is certain proof that no such evidence can ever be found in the future?” > > It’s the absolute certainty that the scripture is false that I take issue with. You think convincing evidence of the Flood will ever be found? Adam and Eve? The world being 6,000 years old? I think not. BTW, I don’t know which zombies you were referring to, but I was talking about the saints (who were dead, not pining for the fjords) who came out of their graves. Not that Zombie Jesus doesn’t have a certain charm; - I don’t care if it rains or freezes, Long as I got my Zombie Jesus, Munching entrails in my car.\* ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/233 "2011-10-20T22:04:47Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I do take issue with labeling it fiction. The disregard of some for the evidences recorded in the scripture has no weight of proof to me. You can claim it to be fiction, but I see it as ignoring evidence. An athiest calling the Bible “fiction” is simply being honest with you. It would be evasive for me to refer to it as anything else. It’s a book of stories that did not, in fact, happen (for the most part; much of the New Testament is made up of letters containing Paul’s opinions on various things, which isn’t fiction) and stories that didn’t happen are fiction by definition. You may have decided “Exodus” is not fiction, but from my perspective the rather overwhelming evidence is that “Exodus” is not the slightest bit more factual than, say, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.” There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the book. There is no evidence the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt, or that they were ever in Egypt at all, or wandered the desert, or that there was ever a Moses. Many of the specific claims made in the book are not only unsupported by supporting evidence but seem flatly ludicrous. Absent any reason to think “Exodus” is true, and given that we DO have archaeological evidence that totally contradicts the claims made in the book - most notably the simple fact that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the Hebrews were never in Egypt - what am I to call the book? I think it’s a fabrication. I have considerable evidence demonstrating it’s a fabrication. That makes it fiction. Would you rather I lie about what I think of it? You’re the one who seems to object to people bearing false witness. I’m not going to lie or evade the question of what I think Exodus it. It’s fiction, from the first word to the last, or so the overwhelming weight of the evidence tells me. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/234 "2011-10-21T02:26:05Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > David, you are aware that, to be charitable, the jury’s out on whether or not Moses of the bible actually existed, with recent archeological evidence suggesting he probably didn’t, right? cite. And you can completely disregard anything you read because anything people wrote can’t be trusted, according to one Doper. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/235 "2011-10-21T03:54:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You think convincing evidence of the Flood will ever be found? Adam and Eve? The world being 6,000 years old? > I think not. I think there is a lot of evidence for floods. Evidence for a great flood at approximately the right time exists in the “legends” of most ancient cultures. I think that most of you folks confused about what makes a fact completely ignore cultural relevance which I recall my sociology professor stressing time and again–“You’re not going to understand another culture or it’s products if you don’t try to think as they did.” Now it’s fine to say, hey, they thought like rocks and I’m not going to bother. But if you don’t bother, PLEASE DON’T come to me arguing how well you understand anything about what it means. Before you can disprove something you have to know what it is you are disproving. I believe that the first organisms we could call _homo sapiens_ were few in number. Adam and Eve? heck I dunno, I suppose that’s good enough names for the very first. There had to have been a first organism that qualified for the definition of _homo sapiens_ and I can only suppose there must have been a second for the first to breed with, as evidenced by the fact that we exist. Why you’d take issue with one record of their names is beyond me–do you have a more reliable record of their names? Doesn’t bother me in the least if the first humans were named something else or Adam and Eve. I fail to see where you’re going with this or what it may prove to argue over their names. Or do you want to argue that there were actually six simultaneous first humans? Maybe. But the likelihood is that they weren’t born in a litter. What evidence do you have that bears on the question? I mean, do you argue that there wasn’t a first organism that qualifies as homo sapiens? Do you seriously argue that their names or lack thereof prove anything at all? Why would I think that the earth is a mere six thousand years old. The evidence is entirely against it. Nowhere does scripture say this–it is the doctrine of idiots who don’t understand the writing of the scripture any better than you. Why you might attribute it to me is beyond me. I never said such a thing, and if you think raising the irrelevant beliefs of some has something to do with my arguments you are sadly mistaken. You see, I just plain didn’t argue anything at all about a flood, Adam and Eve, or the earth being six thousand years old. But you thought these were proper red herrings to get around the challenge none of the defenders of secular humanism have felt up to answering: **WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSED TEST BY THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, INCLUDING ALL PROPER CONTROLS FOR CERTAINTY, THAT CAN PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD?** I know that’s a toughie, but all you impartial skeptics ought to be able to back up the claim that science disproves God with that since you are so certain that these tests have been performed, right? instead of a correct answer to the question I keep hearing about some book written by some guy with alleged credentials claiming he knows what happened way back when. I’m skeptical, but I am listening if you want to explain his evidence other than “we didn’t find anything.” I would propose instead that Moses didn’t have access to modern technology, communication and tools or he might have written something else a bit better explained. For youse dunderheads who claim moses never existed, well, it is plain SOMEBODY put pen to parchment a long time ago and said his name was Moses. You’re deep in denial if you claim the documents weren’t written. Why it’s not plausible his name was Moses I can’t figure out. Since he said his name was Moses, and I don’t have a better suggestion, I am fine with that. I find it curious that amongst these “fake” writings by a man allegedly that didn’t exist, there are rules about eating food that modern science has backed up to a fine point in the aspect of a diet for good health. Strange isn’t it? Or maybe Moses was a primitive scientist who recorded the concensus of the day that uncooked pork kills…no, that must not be valid because Moses didn’t have a vocabulary that included the word “trichinosis.” Right? And since the defenders of secular humanism love scientists, why are you ignoring the book written by Francis S. Collins? Remember him? The leader of the human genome project? I suppose his credentials are worthless and he’s a crackpot…and I’ll believe you when you’re heading something as serious as the human genome project, right? Read his book, too, not just Dawkins, if you’re gonna be fair. Me, I think they both make a fundamental mistake, pro or con, that science has any means of proving or disproving the supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/236 "2011-10-21T04:08:37Z")
> [@David42](#): > > cite. And you can completely disregard anything you read because anything people wrote can’t be trusted, according to one Doper. Most archaeologists have quit searching for evidence of Moses and the Exodus pre-internet so most cites will be on Dead trees. But here is one for you. > **[Is there any historical basis for the events of the Jewish Exodus?](https://www.straightdope.com/21341201/is-there-any-historical-basis-for-the-events-of-the-jewish-exodus)** Really it is very obvious that the Abrahamic religions are from those of Canaan and in no way connected to Egypt. If you do want to get a few books check out “What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?” "From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. " Really the only reason to keep trying to find proof is to avoid a personal crisis of faith. I ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/237 "2011-10-21T04:26:11Z")
> [@David42](#): > > cite. And you can completely disregard anything you read because anything people wrote can’t be trusted, according to one Doper. Cite for said Doper making such a statement, please. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/238 "2011-10-21T04:36:39Z")
> [@BunnyTVS](#): > > Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the Cottingley Fairies?. Prove What? I made a mistake with an absolute, as in “No Christian?” Ok, I admit I was wrong. For the sake of argument, I’ll concede that it is plausible that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a legitimate christian, not merely posing, who believed in pixies. Rather odd, and not founded in scripture in my opinion, but I guess you got me. > [@](#): > > And yet these have all been done, not only _by_ Christians, but in the name of their god. Unless you are claiming that no secular humanist has ever raped, murdered, and stolen, I suppose this comment really has no probative value in the context. Non-adherence by a claimant is only proof of individual hypocrisy, which, surprisingly, the moral code of Christianity teaches against! However, when you’re a secular humanist without a set moral code, but instead a code that seems reasonable to whoever is deciding it, hypocrisy is avoided by moving the goalposts. > [@](#): > > I have seen/heard the Jewish zombie line before. However I have never seen it used factually, only fatuously. It’s a lanyard used to hoist up the apparent absurdities of a core tenet of Christian doctrine.. And if you had a moral code like mine, you’d realize that someone somewhere is actually gonna be dumb enough to really believe that Christians believe in Zombies because you said so, and realize that your statements aren’t reliable for facts to the best of your knowledge in all cases. This kind of derision is a poor debate tool only used when there is little else one can say. If you can’t convince, then belittle. > [@](#): > > My secular opinion is that “truth” is a subjective state. A person can tell the truth, and yet be factually in error. That’s why we constantly bang on about ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’. I agree it’s not deserving of the label “lie” when someone honestly believes they are recounting facts. That’s the core reason, I believe, calling someone a “liar” in Great Debates is prohibited. I have no ability to tell the difference between the merely ignorant and deliberate tellers of falsehoods meant to convince others of the veracity of a certain position. > [@](#): > > Metaphor time: > > Believing in Jesus Christ is like Believing in Santa Clause. You only get the reward (eternal bliss/presents) if your worship is of pure intent. If you worship Jesus/Santa simply because of the rewards offered he will see through your subterfuge and grant you nothing. If come christmas day you don’t get the present you wanted off Santa it’s either because he knew you were only worshipping him to get that present. Or the present he gave you ws what you _really_ wanted. You may not even realise your true present when you see it, bacause _Santa works in mysterious ways_. A poor metaphor. Jesus will accept whether you are bad or good, if one repents. I never heard any version of Santa except he is generous to the good kids and stingy with the bad kids. At any rate, Santa was invented by Christians, and I do believe that that invention was pretty much a metaphor in itself for loving one another. Meaning “Santa” represents the goodwill of parents for their children and their frustration that sometimes kids won’t listen and misbehave. To that extent, I believe in Santa as a personification of goodwill towards one another. Got another problem with personification of a concept? > [@](#): > > Please! There is quite a difference between a momentary cessation of heartbeat and breathing, and being nailed up to a plank of wood by your wrists/stabbed with a spear/shut in a tomb for three days.. And your proof that someone couldn’t “temporarily” die from these causes and yet live again is? Why is this implausible? > [@](#): > > And before you start, no I’m not saying that all clinical deaths are “momentary cessations”, but I borrowed your brush and it was wider than I’m used to. Then why did you say it? Is your rule my supposed fallacy is your license for fallacy? Im not used to arguing that way, but if you say so… ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/239 "2011-10-21T04:38:56Z")
> [@David42](#): > > **WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSED TEST BY THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, INCLUDING ALL PROPER CONTROLS FOR CERTAINTY, THAT CAN PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD?** Why, it’s the same exact proposed test by scientific process, including all proper controls for certainty, that can prove or disprove Santa Claus, don’tcha know? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/240 "2011-10-21T04:42:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Cite for said Doper making such a statement, please. Post #226, this thread, but I’ll not again allow you to translate your lack of reading the thread carefully into my burden. You can claim it is my burden, but I won’t answer. On the other hand, if I make a mistake and I have made an incorrect statement about what’s in this thread, I’ll confess it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688.md?page=13)